Echoes of Gore v Bush in likeability stakes

Going into Day 27 of the 2010 election campaign with two-thirds of the election down and one-third to go we will address the “likeability’’ issue.

In America, pollsters measure “likeability’’ as an important political indicator, but for some reason Australian polling organisations don’t test whether one candidate is more likeable than the other.

It’s possible I have missed something, but I haven’t seen a poll that measures whether people would rather have a latte – or a beer, or go to the footy – with candidate “a", or candidate “b".

What we have instead is measures of “preferred prime minister’’ or “approval’’ and “disapproval’’ ratings. On these measures Julia Gillard is ahead.

But on a “likeability’’ quotient it’s almost certain she would trail.

George Bush won the 2000 presidential election partly because he was more “likeable’’ than Al Gore, and survived against John Kerry in 2004 for much the same reason. Neither Gore, a patrician southerner, nor Kerry, a patrician northerner, were – or are - particularly likeable.

Gore became more likeable after losing the election and devoting himself to environmental causes, but his political persona was awkward. Kerry was awkwardness personified, and many voters regarded him as a bit of phony.

Bush, on the other hand, came across as a “regular guy’’ from Texas, never mind that he was born of a Yankee blue blood family in the north-east and was the son of a former president.

Judging by audience reaction, Abbott proved to be the more in tune with those in attendance, and a Galaxy poll of those present judged he won the “proximity debate’’ 71-59 among those present.

This was an audience hand-picked by Galaxy on the grounds that these individuals said they were undecided voters and were broadly representative.

We use the phrase “proximity debate’’ advisedly. Gillard and Abbott did not actually debate each other. They did not join each other on the stage as would have been the case in an American presidential debate.

This would have enabled the audience in the hall and viewers at home to gauge the two side by side in a town-hall setting.

In such a town-hall proximity forum Abbott appeared more at ease. His decision to speak to the audience from the floor rather than perched on a director’s “high chair’’, as was the case with Gillard, was smart.

Abbott became part of the discussion on more or less the same level with the audience. Gillard, on the other hand, seemed to be elevated and her participation, as a consequence, appeared more distant.

The alternative prime minister had one other advantage: he was appearing at a forum in his hometown of Sydney, albeit in a location at some distance physically and demographically from his Manly electorate.

He was also speaking against the backdrop of widespread voter dissatisfaction with a state labor government: people in Sydney’s west, like others in the state, are waiting with baseball bats to dispatch a deeply unpopular local administration.

Gillard, therefore, carried the additional burden of not being in her own habitat of Melbourne (or Adelaide where she was born) and also suffering the disadvantage of being associated with state Labor.

An anti-state government mood was palpable among the studio audience.

In the end, the “town hall’’ may not have much impact on the eventual election result. Neither Gillard nor Abbott made mistakes. Both hammered away at familiar themes, and both demonstrated they had a reasonable grasp of the issues.

Gillard spoke in more detail – sometimes without drawing breath – about what she plans to do for the country. At times she appeared quite clinical. Abbott employed a more folksy approach which went over quite well with the audience, and may also have worked in people’s living rooms.

Abbott will have prevailed in the “likeability’’ stakes. Gillard will have appeared more knowledgeable. Whether one matters more than the other is moot, but what cannot be denied is that voters will make judgements not simply on the basis of which of the candidates has a better memory for detail.

Emotional factors will come into play such as which of the two people voters will want to have in their living rooms via their televisions in the next cycle – Gillard with her capacity to rattle off one policy detail after another, or a more folksy Abbott who admits “I am no Bill Gates’’ when asked a technical question about broadband.

Advertising consultants will tell you that emotion is almost as important as calculation in decisions people make about product purchases. Abbott, the likeable, will be hoping this will be the case on August 21, whereas Gillard, the knowledgeable, will be banking on people making a more cerebral judgement.

The election result will depend to an extent on which of these trumps the other.